Croce and Korsch both read historical materialism as a mere interpretive canon

Evidence

Initially, however, it is certain that those who understood Marxism as a critical philosophy had in mind its emergence from and consequent repudiation of the Hegelian system and the Hegelian metaphysics. In reaction, they insist on historical materialism as a method, and it is instructive to see such incongruously associated philosophers as Benedetto Croce and Karl Korsch reach much the same conclusions in this context. Thus Croce retained from his Marxist period the conclusion that historical materialism was “neither a new a priori notion of the philosophy of history, nor a new method of historical thought; it must be simply a canon of historical interpretation. This canon recommends that attention be directed to the so-called economic basis of society, in order that the forms and mutations of the latter may be better understood. The concept canon ought not to raise difficulty, especially when it is remembered that it implies no anticipation of results, but only an aid in seeking for them; and is entirely of empirical origin.” — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 713

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘canon, not a priori system’ reading of historical materialism connects to Lukács and to later debates over whether Marx offers prediction or interpretation. — connects to: Historical materialism rearranged rather than explained world history — Cedric J. Robinson, Black Marxism_ The Making of the Black…, 81

Broader Connections

• Historical materialism rearranged rather than explained world history #qualifies (0.75) — Cedric J. Robinson, Black Marxism_ The Making of the Black…, 81